Winning a game - Analysis on nuclear holocaust and what would you do?

[Killtech]

Well, actually since my first game with Civ1 I used so many nukes only in my 1st MP game with E_Pluribus_Unum. I really seldom use nukes and I guess I never had to use them so much because against AI I was usually able to win well before some other AI player could reach victory. This only means anyway that I was playing with a too easy difficulty level; and I suppose the same goes for you if you can win by conquest in the medieval era (and I also suppose you don't play huge or giant maps...). Anyway even at harder difficulty level I suppose AI isn't as good as a human player so strategy against a human player has to be totally different and you need to adapt a lot more to different strategies. E_Pluribus_Unum had a totally different strategy from me, and the same goes for you. There IS a lot of choice in strategy in CIV4. That's where fun is in MP games.

indeed you are right. i never had the pleasure of a true MP versus game and games against the AI have a very different character i guess. i use the most difficult settings i can and yet i win . but i do play on giant maps. on sail speed you have enough time to conquer lots of territory. however i usually stop when i have n times more score than the second civ... no sense in finishing those games.

 

[Arakhor]

I believe that the larger the map and the longer the timescale, the worse the AI performs. Why not try a Marathon/Huge game or even a Large/Epic game?

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

i use the most difficult settings i can and yet i win . but i do play on giant maps. on sail speed you have enough time to conquer lots of territory. however i usually stop when i have n times more score than the second civ... no sense in finishing those games.

Well, I've never played a game on snail... I didn't think it was possible to win by conquest on fair early ages on a giant map but then I think that either somehow timescale isn't really adequate or as Arakhor is saying, the larger the map (and the longer timescale), the worse AI performs.
What I'd really like would be to try a MP game with 4-6 humans and other AI players on a huge/giant map. Looking at the MP forum maybe RoM is becoming playable in MP too. I'd let pass some more time to polish the last known problem but hopefully we'll start a MP game sometime soon. E_Pluribus_Unum and me wanted to start a game some months ago but it was impossible due to OOS; let's hope this time will be the right one!

 

[dexy]

Now I'm thinking of a new way to simulate nuclear wars:

- after launched, ICBMs would explode the next turn
- there should be a national wonder that notifies player about number of ICBMs launched by others in previous turn; this way he can start retaliation (and prepare some units for counter attack) before the first strike reaches his lands.
- short ranged, movable nuke units should explode the same turn as now, but this is OK, since you can see when someone is moving nukes close to your borders. In MP, this could simulate thins like Cuban missile crisis. AI could also be coded to 'cheat' and see nukes approaching, which could lead to downgrading of relations.
- range for short ranged nukes should depend on map size, so that you can't reach nothing but coastal cities in the first sudden strike.

This should be deterrent enough for players to use nukes against others that have at least some nuclear potential. Or they'll all enter a new post apocalypse era, where building spaceships will be the last thing on your agenda

 

[Killtech]

hmm... what about: each use of a-bomb adds 2 in every city in the world for 50 turns and perhaps an additional 5% slower city growth worldwide. so after a nuclear war cities begin to starve and as population goes back so does the economy (overall and decrease).

maybe add 1 in every city to make the effect stronger.

I believe that the larger the map and the longer the timescale, the worse the AI performs. Why not try a Marathon/Huge game or even a Large/Epic game?

i have already found a more challenging mode for me: group every AI civs in teams of two - if possible both should be always different leaders form same civ (e.g. Lincoln+Washington). on emperor difficulty it's actually playable. only nasty thing though is that the two American civs have different colors (1st blue, 2nd orange)... anyone has a suggestion how to change the colors choice of second civs?

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

@ dexy: I don't know if it's feasible for nukes to explode the turn after they're actually launched. Anyway I don't think this is deterrent in any way when you're close to the end of the game.
@Killtech: I like more the idea of 2 in every city in the world for 50 turns although I think that 1 is enough when it comes to a real nuclear showdown. Remember that AI vs AI nuclear wars also occours. And I also think that after a nuclear war cities should begin to starve and as population goes back so should the economy do. I didn't try out a nuclear war with RoM 2.91+AND 1.72 but with previous versions I think it was not so hard to recover from a nuclear war. Anyway from the new weapons and mods I see now, it should be harder now: I think I'll try it sometime soon!

There's another thing I'd like to see in the game and I think I already proposed it months ago but I don't know if someone is able to make it: I've seen several months ago a mod called MAD or something like that. With this mod, you could choose to "pre-target" some plots with your nukes so that when someone launches a nuke on your territory, your pre-targeted nukes are also launched towards their targets. This could also be a deterrent in using nukes because you could start a nuclear war involving more nations and not just you and your target. I think I recall this mod was part of an old version of DCM but Dale hasn't updated it for a long time.

 

[Afforess]

I think you guys are going about this totally backwards. Penalizing nuclear launches is unrealistic to say the least, and not going to solve the problem.

First off, analyze why nuclear weapons are used in the first place:

1.) Last stage of victory
There is nothing you can do to prevent this, the player will win regardless.
2.) Last stand
Again, any penalties won't be worth worrying about if you are on your last cities
3.) Strategic Nuking
This is where you will need to focus, either making nuclear weapons less harmful (more units survive), etc...

Really, there are no ways to prevent options 1 & 2 from happening, you just need to worry about #3.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I think you guys are going about this totally backwards. Penalizing nuclear launches is unrealistic to say the least, and not going to solve the problem.

First off, analyze why nuclear weapons are used in the first place:

1.) Last stage of victory
There is nothing you can do to prevent this, the player will win regardless.
2.) Last stand
Again, any penalties won't be worth worrying about if you are on your last cities
3.) Strategic Nuking
This is where you will need to focus, either making nuclear weapons less harmful (more units survive), etc...

Really, there are no ways to prevent options 1 & 2 from happening, you just need to worry about #3.

Well, actually since my first post I say that penalties/bonuses are not the problem. This thread is not about how good/bad a nuclear holocaust is simulated. It's about how we can make it less attractive at the end of the game. As for your 3 points, Afforess:

1. I hadn't yet a chance to try a nuclear war in the last version of RoM+AND but in the last version I tried a full nuclear strike (2.6 I think), it would have been way too easy to recover from a nuclear holocaust. If this has been changed in the current version, I happy about it. If you say that "the player will win regardless" I believe you and I hope I can try it sometime soon. But actually as someone already said, if you're losing while someone is winning space victory, you nuke him and use some units to capture his capital (which is something I already tried several times), I'm not so sure that "the player will win regardless".
2. Of course I agree
3. I don't think nukes should be less harmful; actually I've always thought that there should be a chance for nukes to destroy the other players nukes in a first strike, thus giving more meaning to subs and tactical nukes. I'm happy to know that the last fusion nukes (by CivFuehrer if I'm not mistaken) introduced in AND have this capability.

 

[Crimson Phantom]

I always avoid nuclear weapons, at the very least I have a policy of "no first use", because I don't play for "Victory", I play for role-playing. Sure, it's great if I can conquer the world. But sometimes you're thrown a scenario that's just no-win, or at least no-victory, so I'm content to have my Japan control only the home islands, but be a technological powerhouse, or let my Netherlands control only one city in Europe so long as it maintains its independence.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I always avoid nuclear weapons, at the very least I have a policy of "no first use", because I don't play for "Victory", I play for role-playing. Sure, it's great if I can conquer the world. But sometimes you're thrown a scenario that's just no-win, or at least no-victory, so I'm content to have my Japan control only the home islands, but be a technological powerhouse, or let my Netherlands control only one city in Europe so long as it maintains its independence.

I agree with you on the "role-playing" aspect. But can you do the same in a MP game? I mean, I suppose that most of us want to play a MP game to win (besides having fun). So if you and your opponent are both close to victory, do you simply let him win for the sake of "role-playing"?

 

[LaughingTulkas]

I agree with you on the "role-playing" aspect. But can you do the same in a MP game? I mean, I suppose that most of us want to play a MP game to win (besides having fun). So if you and your opponent are both close to victory, do you simply let him win for the sake of "role-playing"?

This goes back to an earlier point about what your main goal for playing is. If you want to be in character, you might be a leader who would never use nukes even if another country was about to win a space race victory, but might if the other country was close to a domination or conquest victory. If your goal of playing a character is greater than your goal of winning, then you make the obvious choice. But if winning is your main criteria, nuke away.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

I suppose if you want to role-play and you're playing as Maya or Inca, your main objective should be to be wiped away? I can understand the role-playing criteria but what if you play with dead civilizations or on maps different from the earth?

 

[os79]

I suppose if you want to role-play and you're playing as Maya or Inca, your main objective should be to be wiped away? I can understand the role-playing criteria but what if you play with dead civilizations or on maps different from the earth?

Then your question is effectively invalid . Remember this is NOT! a historical simulator. It is a game that tries to imitate realism from the history but still be a game nevertheless. Consider the earth that formed as an alternative timeline with an alternative universe(s), galaxies, stars, and planets. Anything is possible in this imaginative universe, including nuking madmen who accept universal applause :shudder: .

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Then your question is effectively invalid . Remember this is NOT! a historical simulator. It is a game that tries to imitate realism from the history but still be a game nevertheless. Consider the earth that formed as an alternative timeline with an alternative universe(s), galaxies, stars, and planets. Anything is possible in this imaginative universe, including nuking madmen who accept universal applause :shudder: .

That's exactly what I'm saying... what's the sense in playing "historical" unless you want to play a scenario? If you want to play "historical", then there should be no Inca, Maya and so on in modern era...
The point is that using nukes to win a game isn't a matter of "realism" in the game or "historical accuracy"; in a game where Maya survive in the modern era, Gandhi could be nuking the world... The point is that the choice to use or not to use nukes to win a game is purely based on how the player thinks and if he's happy enough with the goal he's reached or if he's willing to do whatever it takes to reach victory no matter the consequences. As for me, I've never played a game where I've just settled down and I've been happy with what I've reached if that wasn't enough to win a game. I suppose that I'm the kind of player that either wins or dies trying... (Most of the time I suppose I die trying)

 

[Crimson Phantom]

Sure it's an issue of realism. The Maya surviving as an independant state (the people survived, my cousin is almost full-blooded Mayan) doesn't make the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction any less logical. It doesn't matter whether the superpowers are the U.S. and U.S.S.R. or France and Persia, nobody in real life is willing to annihilate another country when it will mean certain death for them, their family, friends and all of their countrymen.

 

[Afforess]

nobody in real life is willing to annihilate another country when it will mean certain death for them, their family, friends and all of their countrymen.

Then why are we so protective of Nuclear Technology?

 

[szemek77]

I can agree that Mutual Assured Destruction works for state actors (and that is what Crimson Phantom meant, I guess). The real problem is a threat posed by non-state actor. You simply don't have return address......

 

[Arakhor]

Because, Afforess, people are under the assumption that nuclear weapons secure the safety of one's nation from other nuclear weapons, when in fact that they only deter reasonable people. Fundamentalists or hardline extremists would no doubt use them if they got their hands on them.

 

[os79]

Because, Afforess, people are under the assumption that nuclear weapons secure the safety of one's nation from other nuclear weapons, when in fact that they only deter reasonable people. Fundamentalists or hardline extremists would no doubt use them if they got their hands on them.

The irony of this is that nuclear weapons by their existence is already a threat to the owner! The day USA started to stockpile an atomic bomb, and the other nations that imitated USA, was the day when the humanity as we understood it changed. To clarify, consider this madness of simply stockpiling a increasing destructive (in fact to the extreme that we can effectively reduce human beings to a small population) weapons would be apparent. EXCEPT THAT WE ARE SO USED TO IT NOW! Were someone from 1900 to time travel to this present day and also to understand the situation, he/she would had been appalled by our casual acceptance of our potential destruction! That is what I meant by our understanding of humanity being changed forever after.

 

[45°38'N-13°47'E]

Because, Afforess, people are under the assumption that nuclear weapons secure the safety of one's nation from other nuclear weapons, when in fact that they only deter reasonable people. Fundamentalists or hardline extremists would no doubt use them if they got their hands on them.

I suppose that Afforess was perfectly aware of this He simply wanted to say that's not true that "nobody in real life is willing to annihilate another country when it will mean certain death for them, their family, friends and all of their countrymen."
I also don't agree completely; we could say that for the moment, nobody who owns a nuclear weapon is willing to use it for a first strike, which is very different.
As for what Crimson Phantom said about realism, well, this is a game so I suppose that if we can have Gandhi controlling 50% of the planet and Montzuma the other 50%, using nukes or not doesn't make the game any more close to reality...